Abstract
In contemporary discussions of natural evil, one classically important theodicy—variously called warfare theodicy, fallen angel theodicy, or the Satan hypothesis—is rarely mentioned, let alone defended. This is the view that so-called natural evil, the evil suffered by sentient beings that is not caused by human agency, is caused by angelic agency, specifically that of Satan and other fallen angels. Although the Satan hypothesis has received scant attention in contemporary philosophy of religion, Richard Swinburne, Michael Martin, Robert Adams, and David O’Connor have each brought separate objections against it, but their objections fail. The real problem with the Satan hypothesis lies elsewhere. This paper begins by stating the Satan hypothesis and briefly sketching its scriptural and theological warrants in the Christian tradition. Second, it canvasses the objections that have been brought against the hypothesis and shows how each objection fails. Third, it isolates the real problem for the Satan hypothesis, namely the lack of any satisfactory account of how malevolent angelic agency could conceivably be the cause of natural evil. Finally, the paper offers three speculative proposals for such an account, highlighting problems with each. The upshot is that although the Satan hypothesis is a prominent theodicy in the history of Christian thought and in popular Christianity, it confronts philosophical challenges not yet met by its proponents.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abraham, W. (1985). An introduction to the philosophy of religion. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Adams, R. (1985). Plantinga on the problem of evil. In J. Tomberlin & P. van Inwagen (Eds.), Alvin Plantinga (pp. 225–256). Dordrecht: J. Reidel.
Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa theologiae (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans.). New York: Benziger Brothers. (13th Century CE).
Augustine. (1991). De trinitate (Edmund Hill, O.P., trans.). Hyde Park: New City Press. (5th Century CE).
Boyd, G. (2001). Satan and the problem of evil. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
Hart, D. B. (2005). The doors of the sea. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Kelly, S. (1997). The problem of evil and the Satan hypothesis. Sophia, 36(2), 29–42.
Martin, M. (1983). God, Satan, and natural evil. Sophia, 22(3), 43–45.
O’Connor, D. (1998). God and inscrutable evil. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Penelhum, T. (1971). Religion and rationality. New York: Random House.
Plantinga, A. (1985). Self profile. In J. Tomberlin & P. van Inwagen (Eds.), Alvin Plantinga (pp. 3–98). Dordrecht: J. Reidel.
Swinburne, R. (1978). Natural evil. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15(4), 295–301.
Swinburne, R. (1996). Why God allows evil. In Is there a God (pp. 95–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Ben Wayman for comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and Tom Crisp, Alfred Freddoso, Steve Porter, and Gregg Ten Elshof for helpful conversations about the ideas in the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dunnington, K. The Problem with the Satan Hypothesis: Natural Evil and Fallen Angel Theodicies. SOPHIA 57, 265–274 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0608-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0608-7